Message from @Deleted User
Discord ID: 341015429923340290
One is that lack of evidence is never what falsifies a statement
@Firefly#9983 They are interrelated, but it is hard to explain it to a complete newbie.
@Deleted User Yeah, apparently Holocaust revisioning started amongst the left-wing French circles is what I was told on the main leftypol discord.
Might be related to huge anti-zionism and etc.
@National Trotskyist you know what else I find hilarious is that ethnonationalism was one of the primary platforms of the Soviet system
@Mimic King#0692 I never said that a lack of evidence was the same as being disprovable, at all. Falsifiable means that a discovery can be made that makes a hypothesis untenable, like my example shows clearly.
I find it hilarious because both holocaust revisionism and ethnonationalism are considered FASCIST NAZISM by the nu-left but are really classically leftist positions
@Deleted User one is based on another. It is a specific relation. It is just different areas. Logic is more abstract theory. But is united with less.
but you're wrong @Deleted User
a lack of evidence is never what shows that a hypothesis is untenable
@Firefly#9983 Okay, thanks for the correction. Maybe I should just focus on materialism first.
I don't see that in his post as all.
What he said hasn't got anything to do with a lack of evidence 😒
@Mimic King#0692
>a lack of evidence is never what shows that a hypothesis is untenable
I agree with you! How am I not clear?
for a hypothesis to be falsifiable, there must be a condition whereby evidence to support the claim CAN be discovered
So saying that "lack of fossils" would falsify evolution and natural selection is completely nonsensical
"Falsifiable means that a discovery can be made that makes a hypothesis untenable"
That's what I said numbnuts.
Right, meaning, contravening evidence, not a LACK of evidence
EXACTLY
🤔
it doesn't mean the hypothesis is unfalsifiable
so, you're confused
And i never mentions fossils, I mentioned mutations.
No, you are confused.
Your script broke.
GG.
Haha
mutations, whatever
@Deleted User materialism is not very agile. It needs dialectics to function properly. Many materialist are less agile than even some idealists.
it's not a lack of mutations what would falsify evolution
you're still wrong in either case
because you don't actually understand falsifiability yet
I know, but if mutations where show to not occur, this was discovered, it would falsify evolution.
again, you're completely confused on falsifiability
what you're saying is that a lack of mutations would leave the theory of evolution UNSUBSTANTIATED
@Firefly#9983 Hmm, I will have to think of a good way to communicate historical and dialectical materialism is a single way. Or not! When I feel like it.
that doesn't mean it would be unfalsifiable or falsifiable based on a lack of mutations
I don't think you understand evolution, then.
I understand it just fine, you just don't understand what falsifiability is